DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 07/18/2026. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 17 are pending in this application. As directed, claim 1 has been amended; claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18-20 cancelled; claims 7, 9, 13, 15 and 17 have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 04/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 07/18/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/18/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited prior art Yang (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0241127 A1, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the limitations “a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion”, and the newly added limitations “wherein the upper opening of the operational portion is configured to be partially covered by the chopping board to form an uncovered part adjacent to the chopping board to allow ingredients placed on the chopping board to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part of the upper opening” recited in the independent claim 1. Furthermore, the previously cited reference Constantino et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0027966 A1, previously cited) is no longer applied in any rejections in this office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art Constantino et al., are moot. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior arts of record Spann (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0096845 A1, previously cited) and Roser (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0133383 A1, previously cited) – see details on pages 10-13 of the Remarks dated 07/18/2026, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 07/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “A mobile kitchen cart assembly” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to Applicant’s argument that mobile kitchen cart assembly (i.e., mobile cart assembly that is configured to be used in kitchen), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the mobile cart assembly of the prior art Spann is capable of performing the intended use in the kitchen, therefore, it meets the claim.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Spann discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including a mobile cart assembly comprising: a cart including: a cart body including: a carrier portion having an accommodating space with a front opening facing toward a front of the cart body; and an operational portion located above the carrier portion and having an upper opening communicating with the accommodating space; a cover plate detachably disposed on and covering the upper opening of the operational portion; and multiple casters disposed at a bottom of the cart body; and two supporting stands respectively disposed at two sides of the cart body of the cart, each of the two supporting stands including: a supporting plate being foldable and pivotally connected to the cart body of the cart; and a supporting element being foldable, pivotally connected to the cart body of the cart, and connected to the supporting plate of one of the two supporting stands to support the supporting plate in a horizontally expanding position. However, Spann does not explicitly disclose a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives. Roser teaches a cutting board system comprising a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion. It is noted that the rejections are based on the combination. In this case, in combination, by adding the Roser tower 101 to the rear of the top panel 18 of Spann, in combination, the tower 101 would be located at the rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives.
Moreover, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that there is no reason or motivation to combine Spann and Roser, the Examiner insist the rationale of the combination of Spann and Roser is proper. In the instant case, the purpose of combining Spann with Roser’s teaching is not defeated, for, at least, the benefits of improving organization and accessibility. The modification keeps the cutting tools visible, fixed and secured in position, quickly retrievable, and prevents mixing with other instruments; therefore, reduce time searching through drawers and support faster workflow during use. Additionally, the tower with its unique property of rotating 180 degree makes it apt to use both the surfaces in use, as recognized by Roser [Roser, Abstract]. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s argument that there is no reason or motivation to combine Spann and Roser, is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner’s response to the independent claim 1 above generally applies to dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “two said chopping boards” in line 2. This should be changed to “said chopping board comprising/including two chopping boards”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“supporting element being foldable, pivotally connected to the cart body of the cart, and connected to the supporting plate of one of the two supporting stands to support the supporting plate in a horizontally expanding position” in claim 1 (lines 19-21). This limitation uses generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “to support the supporting plate in a horizontally expanding position” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “supporting element” will be interpreted as “stand, frame, rod, or panel that is capable of supporting the supporting plate” and equivalents, as shows in the Drawings Figs.1-5 (see the supporting element 22 in Figs.1-5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spann (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0096845 A1, previously cited) in view of Roser (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0133383 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Yang (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0241127 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Spann discloses a mobile kitchen cart assembly (transport cart assembly as shown in Spann Figs.1-3) comprising:
a cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application carrier portion 111 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application carrier portion and the prior art Spann carrier portion are equivalent) having
an accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application accommodating space 113 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application accommodating space 113 and the prior art Spann accommodating space are equivalent) with a front opening facing toward a front of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann annotated Fig.3 below shows the accommodating space with front opening facing toward the front of the frame assembly 12); and
an operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application operational portion 112 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application operational portion 112 and the prior art Spann operational portion are equivalent) located above the carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) and having
an upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application upper opening 114 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application upper opening 114 and the prior art Spann upper opening are equivalent) communicating with the accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.3 below);
a cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) detachably disposed on and covering the upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (Spann Figs.1-3 shows the top panel disposed on and covering the upper opening of the operational portion; additionally, the hinge parts or pin parts 62 of the top panel 18 are removably coupled to the sleeve parts 64 of the frame assembly 12 as shown in Spann Fig.3, and see Spann Fig.5 for the detailed connection between the hinge parts or pin parts 62 and the sleeve parts 64; therefore, the top panel 18 detachably disposed on and covering the upper opening of the operational portion); and
multiple casters (four casters 55, Spann Figs.1-3) disposed at a bottom of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 show four casters 55 disposed at a bottom of the frame assembly 12); and
two supporting stands (two supporting stands includes the left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, and the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) respectively disposed at two sides (left side and right side of the frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3), each of the two supporting stands (each of two supporting stands includes the left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, and the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) being foldable and pivotally connected to the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 and Par.0020 disclose each of the left extension panel 20a and the right extension panel 20b being foldable and pivotally connected to the frame assembly 12 of the cart 10); and
a supporting element (left side panel 14a or right side panel 14b, Spann Figs.1-3) being foldable, pivotally connected to the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 & Par.0050 discloses each of the left side panel 14a and the right side panel 14b being foldable, pivotally connected to the frame assembly 12), and connected to the supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) of one of the two supporting stands (left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, or the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) to support the supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) in a horizontally expanding position (horizontally expanding position as shown in Spann Fig.2), and
multiple storage boxes (containers 90, Spann Figs.1-2) configured to be stored in the accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
718
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Spann does not explicitly disclose:
a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives;
a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion; wherein the cover plate is configured to cover the chopping board; and
wherein the upper opening of the operational portion is configured to be partially covered by the chopping board to form an uncovered part adjacent to the chopping board to allow ingredients placed on the chopping board to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part of the upper opening.
Roser teaches a cutting board system (Roser Fig.1):
a knife holder (tower 101, Roser Fig.1) (the tower 101 is knife holder because Roser Par.0051 teaches: “The knife will engage through the holster opening 113 and the push force of the knife on the rear wall 102C would obviate the force generated by the spring member 102E thus locking at least one tooth 119 of sliding holster with at least one toothed rack 103 of the tower 101.”, and as shown in Roser Fig.1) located at a rear of the operational portion (rear of operational portion, Roser annotated Fig.2 below) extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion (upper opening of the operational portion, Roser annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that in combination, by adding the Roser tower 101 to the rear of the top panel 18 of Spann, in combination, the tower 101 would be located at the rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion), and configured for holding knives (it is noted that the Roser tower 101 is capable of holding knives).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann, by adding a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives, as taught by Roser, in order to improve organization and accessibility. The modification keeps the cutting tools visible, fixed and secured in position, quickly retrievable, and prevents mixing with other instruments; therefore, reduce time searching through drawers and support faster workflow during use. Additionally, the tower with its unique property of rotating 180 degree makes it apt to use both the surfaces in use, as recognized by Roser [Roser, Abstract].
Spann in view of Roser does not explicitly teach:
a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion; wherein the cover plate is configured to cover the chopping board;
wherein the upper opening of the operational portion is configured to be partially covered by the chopping board to form an uncovered part adjacent to the chopping board to allow ingredients placed on the chopping board to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part of the upper opening.
Yang teaches a food processing system (food processor 6, Yang Fig.5):
a chopping board (chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5) detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion (upper opening of the receiving space 620, see Yang Figs.5-6) (Yang Par.0029 teaches: “Then, the chopping board 60 is removed from the receiving space 620 of the container 62, and processed foods on the chopping board 60 are pushed into and placed in the straining basket 61.”; therefore, the chopping board 60 is detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion); wherein the cover plate is configured to cover the chopping board (chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5) (it is noted that by adding the teachings of a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion, as taught by Yang, into the cart of Spann, in combination, Spann in view of Roser and Yang teaches the cover plate of Spann is configured to cover the chopping board because the cover plate of Spann is swingable to open and close the upper opening of the operational portion via hinges);
wherein the upper opening of the operational portion (upper opening of the receiving space 620, see Yang Figs.5-6) is configured to be partially covered by the chopping board (chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5) to form an uncovered part (gap 601 next to two ends of the chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5 & Par.0026; Yang Par.0026 teaches: “The chopping board 60 has two opposite ends 600, with a gap 601 being defined between each of the two opposite ends 600 of the chopping board 60 and a respective one of the two opposite ends 626 of the container 62”) adjacent to the chopping board (chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5) to allow ingredients placed on the chopping board (chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5) to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes (container 62, Yang Fig.5) in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part (gap 601 next to two ends of the chopping board 60, Yang Fig.5 & Par.0026; Yang Par.0026 teaches: “The chopping board 60 has two opposite ends 600, with a gap 601 being defined between each of the two opposite ends 600 of the chopping board 60 and a respective one of the two opposite ends 626 of the container 62”) of the upper opening (upper opening of the receiving space 620, see Yang Figs.5-6) (Yang Par.0029 teaches: “In operation, referring to FIG. 8 with reference to FIGS. 5-7, the support bars 63 are retracted into the two guide tracks 625 of the container 62, and the straining basket 61 and the chopping board 60 are mounted in the receiving space 620 of the container 62 as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. In such a manner, the chopping board 60 is used to process foods, such as vegetables, fishes, meats and the like. At this time, wasted foods and water from the chopping board 60 are pushed into and placed in the container 62. Then, the chopping board 60 is removed from the receiving space 620 of the container 62, and processed foods on the chopping board 60 are pushed into and placed in the straining basket 61.”; therefore, the chopping board 60 is removed from the receiving space 620 after the foods and water from the chopping board 60 are pushed into and placed in the container 62; therefore, the foods and water from the chopping board 60 are pushed into and placed in the container 62 via the gap 601 adjacent to two ends of the chopping board 60. Accordingly, in combination, Spann in view of Roser and Yang teaches the chopping board with gap adjacent to two ends of the chopping board allow ingredients placed on the chopping board to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part (i.e. gap)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann in view of Roser, by adding a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion, and wherein the upper opening of the operational portion is configured to be partially covered by the chopping board to form an uncovered part adjacent to the chopping board to allow ingredients placed on the chopping board to be swept to drop into one of the storage boxes in the accommodating space of the carrier portion via the uncovered part of the upper opening, as taught by Yang, in order to create additional workspace, increase functionality, enhance convenience and improve organization because the detachable chopping board enables selective conversion of the mobile cart into a workstation when needed. Furthermore, the modification can process, wash and clean the foods quickly and completely, thereby facilitating a user processing and washing the foods, as recognized by Yang [Yang Par.0013]. Thereby, preserving compact storage functionality while adding operational capability.
Regarding claim 3, Spann in view of Roser and Yang discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Spann also discloses:
multiple hangers (two rear sleeve parts 64, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) are disposed on and protrude from an upper section of a rear (rear, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann annotated Fig.3 below shows the annotated two rear sleeve parts 64 are disposed on and protrude from an upper section of a rear of the frame assembly 12); and
the cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) is configured to cover the upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) and be hung at the rear (rear, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) via the multiple hangers (two rear sleeve parts 64, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (it is noted that the hinge parts or pin parts 62 of the top panel 18 are coupled to the sleeve parts 64 of the frame assembly 12 as shown in Spann Fig.3, and see Spann Fig.5 for the detailed connection between the hinge parts or pin parts 62 and the sleeve parts 64; and since the two rear sleeve parts 64 are at the rear of the frame assembly 12, thus, the top panel 18 be hung at the rear of the frame assembly 12 via two rear sleeve parts 64).
PNG
media_image4.png
763
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Spann does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mobile kitchen cart assembly comprises two said chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side; and
the cover plate is configured to cover the two said chopping boards.
Yang teaches (Yang Fig.10):
wherein the mobile kitchen assembly (food processor 6a, shown in Yang Fig.10) comprises two chopping boards (two chopping boards 60a, Yang Fig.10) detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion (upper opening of the receiving space 620, see Yang Figs.5-6) (Yang Par.0031 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 10, the food processor 6 a in accordance with another preferred embodiment of the present invention comprises two chopping boards 60 a removably mounted in the receiving space 620 of the container 62.”) and arranged side by side (Yang Fig.10 shows the two chopping boards 60a arranged side by side, and Yang Par.0031 teaches: “The two chopping boards 60 a are juxtaposed to each other.”.)
In combination, by modifying the Spann in view of Roser and Yang chopping board (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) to include two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, in combination, Spann in view of Roser and Yang teaches:
the cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) is configured to cover the two chopping boards (two chopping boards 60a, Yang Fig.10) (it is noted that the primary reference Spann discloses the top panel 18 configured to cover the upper opening of the operational portion, see the Spann annotated Fig.3 above; therefore, in combination, by modifying the Spann in view of Roser and Yang chopping board (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) to have two chopping boards instead of one, and the two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, the Spann top panel 18 would cover the two chopping boards because the top panel 18 of Spann is swingable to open and close the upper opening of the operational portion via hinges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann in view of Roser and Yang, by modifying the one chopping board to include two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, as taught by Yang, in order to allow the mobile cart to support simultaneous or staged operations, instead of forcing everything onto a single surface. Thus, the modification would prevent cross-contamination, increase functionality, keep workflow organized, and allow larger tasks to be handled without increasing permanent cart size. Thereby improving workflow efficiency, organization, and operational flexibility compared to a single work surface.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
McKay et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,322,732 B2) discloses a portable workstation including wheels, a tabletop, a generally planar member and a chassis joining the wheels, the tabletop and the planar member. While joined to the wheels and the tabletop by the chassis, the planar member is movable between a protracted position and a retracted position. A majority of the planar member extends above the tabletop in the protracted position, and a majority of the planar member does not extend above the tabletop in the retracted position.
Knighton (U.S. Patent No. 9,877,577 B2) discloses a storage and serving cart including a cabinet assembly having an internal storage cavity where a plurality of wheels are coupled to a lower portion thereof. A tabletop with an opening therethrough is coupled to an upper surface of the cabinet assembly. A tabletop insert being a laminate structure having first and second sides each of a different material is reversibly positionable within the opening to have either the first or second side facing upwardly from the tabletop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/08/2026
Prosecution Insights